Wow... someone hasn't been aging gracefully.
There are just no words.
"Okay, now after that interview, and nobody knows this, we called Elizabeth Edwards. And we said, ‘you know we’re real interested in this personal attack stuff because we have a problem with that on the left. Would you come on, either sit, you know, on a set, or on the phone?’ ‘No.’ Now, I’m saying to myself, wait a minute, you call into a program that no one watches, alright. And you have a point, no one watches. She’s- nobody sees this. I’m giving you a forum where ten million people on radio and TV are going to see it and you say no."
"Alright, now, we called Edwards as I mentioned, Elizabeth Edwards. And said, ‘look we want to talk about this too, these personal attacks.’ And she says ‘no.’"
In the olden days, if a disturbed child exhibited persistent delusions, science would attempt to provide a cure. But we're more enlightened now. We indulge the delusions, and twist reality around in an attempt to conform to them. After all, who's to say one reality is more real than another?
In conclusion, Zahn says of the parents:They know they will face difficult decisions as [the boy] reaches puberty, but for now they say they'll do whatever it takes to make their child happy.
How thoughtful. Apparently his future will feature hormone-induced mutation and sexual mutilation, all because no one was politically incorrect enough to refrain from feeding a small child's delusions.
The ramifications of that loaded deal are not lost on the filmmaker, particularly since "Sicko" is arguably his most populist film yet.
"It's a really interesting irony for me," Moore says, as his chauffeured Lexus SUV (a hybrid) steers through afternoon traffic on the filmmaker's return from a taping of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."
While some filmmakers' wealth can make their films seem elitist, Moore argues that his moviemaking and financial accomplishments actually have allowed him to remain even more focused on the real world.
"What it should do to me is remind me every single day that I have an even greater responsibility to do good with the success that I have been blessed with," Moore says. "I need to make sure that I am able to make the next film with the money that I have made on this film."
By being financially independent, Moore says, he is insulated from the corporate pressures that might try to dilute his impassioned documentaries, which include "Roger & Me," "Bowling for Columbine" and the Oscar-winning "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"The money allows me to never have to give in, never compromise," says Moore, wearing his trademark T-shirt, jeans and windbreaker, his Michigan State baseball hat off for the moment. "Nothing can ever be held over my head in the sense of, 'If you don't do this, we won't give you your money!' 'Oh, wow, I guess I'll be in really bad shape, won't I?'
"That's an enormous bit of freedom that I have — to stay completely true to the things I believe in. But I have an even greater responsibility because I have been blessed with that great success. I challenge myself with that, constantly."
"Certainly, the No. 1 question I get asked is, 'What can I do?' " Moore says. "I am not prepared for that. Because I am not leading a movement to revolutionize the healthcare system in America. I am making a movie. I have spent a year and a half making this film, and this is my contribution."
Moore says his first-class travel, accommodations and car service are not his choice, or even his preference (the latter statement has been disputed by some people who have worked with him).
"Harvey pays for all this," he says. "I would never stay at the Four Seasons, with all due respect to the Four Seasons. If I were coming out here on my own, I would never stay there. They pay for that because that's the workplace and I'm working and we do the junket there."
People who resent his wealth, Moore says, are not generally working-class stiffs like himself who have moved into the upper class. "When one of us succeeds, we're happy about that. We don't begrudge that. The begrudging that comes from my success or my financial success comes from people who grew up in a little nicer home and somehow didn't get the same break that I was fortunate enough to get in this business. So they are embittered."
By a vote of 46 to 53, the U.S. Senate voted today not to proceed with debate on legislation providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants presently living in the United States. Following the Senate's vote, Presidential Candidate and U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) made the following statement:
"From the very beginning of the immigration debate, the American people were clear in their strong opposition to granting amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants. While this flawed piece of legislation should never have been considered in the first place, I commend my colleagues in the Senate who positioned themselves with the American people and rejected this amnesty bill.
"The idea that amnesty must be accepted in order to achieve secure and enforceable borders is absurd. The effort to provide citizenship benefits to millions of illegal immigrants failed -- not once, but twice. It is time that we abandon the concept of rewarding those who have broken our laws and take action to secure our borders and enforce existing immigration laws. This is what the American people have been demanding and this is what they deserve.
"Executing one existing law in particular, the Secure Fence Act, would go a long way to bringing a greater element of security to our Southern land border. By constructing double-layered security fencing across the major smuggling corridors on the U.S.-Mexico border, as required by the Secure Fence Act, we will have taken a significant step towards achieving a border that is enforceable and no longer a conduit for illegal activity."
NOTE: Congressman Duncan authored the fencing provisions in the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego Border Fence across Arizona, and portions of New Mexico and Texas.
Friday afternoon, Republican mouthpiece Ann Coulter brought hate-speech politics to a new low.
This video shows Coulter addressing the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, March, 2, 2007 in Washington, D.C.
We must show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire.
Can you help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry?
Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, has called on Americans to stop conservative Ann Coulter’s “hate words.” But when that campaign hired two hateful, anti-Christian bigots as “official” bloggers, Mrs. Edwards did not object and the campaign decided to give them a “fair shake,” as John Edwards said. The bloggers resigned in February only after their bigoted writings were exposed by other bloggers and conservative talk radio, causing a huge embarrassment.
ABC, CBS, and NBC interviewed Elizabeth Edwards this morning to allow her to further complain about Coulter’s “hate words,” but none mentioned the Edwards campaign’s bigoted bloggers. Concerning Elizabeth Edwards’ silence about the “hate-mongers” in her husband’s own presidential campaign, MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:
“Elizabeth Edwards, who apparently is now acting as spokesperson for the Edwards campaign and who is very familiar with and active in the blog world, never said a word about the campaign’s hiring and defending of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Mrs. Edwards is a hypocrite. These two bloggers are notorious for writing such repulsive things as,
“What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” (Marcotte) In the Duke Lacrosse case, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?” (Marcotte) Sen. Rick Santorum talks about sex “lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f***ing his desk on the Senate floor.” (Marcotte) God is “a sadistic bastard.” (Marcotte) Pope Benedict, “he’s just a dictator … the Pope’s gotta’ tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.” (Marcotte) President Bush has a “wingnut Christofascist base.” (McEwan) “When CNN invited Ann Coulter to comment on the 2004 presidential debates, I sniffed, ‘I didn’t realize they had officially transformed into the C*** News Network.” (McEwan)
“Elizabeth Edwards and the liberal media have a double standard when it comes to ‘hate words.’ If it’s hate towards conservatives, it’s okay with them. But if it’s criticism of the Edwards campaign by a conservative, it’s ‘ugliness’ that ‘debases political dialogue.’ The liberal media need to ask, Will Elizabeth Edwards rebuke those hateful bloggers and, by the way, did she have a hand in hiring them?
Many Senate office phones were down Thursday morning due to a “modest increase in call volume,” according to an e-mail from the Senate assistant sergeant at arms and the chief information officer.
Opponents of the bipartisan immigration reform bill that stalled in the Senate after a 46-53 cloture vote this morning said foes of the bill had flooded Senate offices with phone calls.
“The Verizon telephone switch[board] serving the Senate is experiencing problems that are being exacerbated by this morning’s modest increase in call volume,” says the e-mail, which was sent at 9:45 a.m.
Verizon is attempting to resolve problems and the voicemail system has been temporarily disconnected from the telephone switchboard.
“Calls will still go to the voice mail system, but callers will receive the generic voice mail greeting (‘You have reached the United States Senate voice messaging service ...’) rather than the voice mail greeting of the person or office being called,” the notice continued.
It is unknown when the telephones and voicemail service will be up and running again.
Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer could not be reached for comment.
Bill Barnes says he was scratching off a losing $2 lottery ticket inside a gas station when he felt a hand slip into his front-left pants pocket, where he had $300 in cash.
He immediately grabbed the person's wrist with his left hand and started throwing punches with his right, landing six or seven blows before a store manager intervened.
"I guess he thought I was an easy mark," Barnes, 72, told The Grand Rapids Press for a story Tuesday.
He's anything but an easy mark: Barnes served in the Marines, was an accomplished Golden Gloves boxer and retired after 20 years as an iron worker.
Jesse Daniel Rae, 27, was arraigned Monday in Rockford District Court on one count of unarmed robbery.
Barnes said he had just withdrawn the money from a bank machine and put it in the pocket of his shorts before driving to a service station in Comstock Park, a Grand Rapids suburb.
He remembers noticing a patron acting suspiciously, asking the price of different brands of cigarettes and other items. While turned away, Barnes felt the hand in his pocket, so he took action.
"I guess I acted on instinct," he said.
Barnes was a regional runner-up in Golden Gloves competition in the novice and open divisions before enlisting in the Marines in 1956.
After retiring as an iron worker, he now works part-time as a starter at a golf course.
Barnes said he'd probably do the same thing again under the same circumstances, if for no other reason than what he would face back home.
"I wouldn't want my wife to give me hell for lettin' that guy get my money," he said with a smile.
One of the more disturbing aspects of 1984 is the way the government would attempt to control our thoughts by deleting words from the language. More disturbing still is the way real-life bureaucrats have followed suit.
"We just wanted to remove the stigma of the label 'common prostitute'. It's been around since 1824, so it was a bit outdated. It just wasn't really helpful to label people."
Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.
Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts' parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for "permanent personal injuries" she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.
"I don't know, maybe about 3 chews and it literally locked my jaw … and it just literally pulled my jaw out of joint," she told MyFoxDetroit.com.
McArthur's lawyer, Brian Muawad, says the candies caused her to develop a condition known as temporal mandibular joint dysfunction. McArthur says she has had trouble chewing, talking and sleeping since the incident.
McArthur says she just wants to make sure nobody else meets the same end she did when she decided to indulge her sweetooth.
"I don't want to see anybody else have to go through what I have gone through from eating a piece of candy that was supposed to be soft chew," she said.
Here's some advice, folks -- and this is from someone who fought this bill as hard as anyone on the net.
Be magnanimous in victory.
Remember the people who fought for us all along, like Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, David Vitter, Jeff Sessions and some of the other people who played a smaller, but still significant role, like Elizabeth Dole and John Cornyn.
Don't forget that the House Republicans stepped up when it counted and sent a message to the Senate by opposing amnesty.
Keep in mind that John Ensign, the head of the RNSC, voted for cloture when it counted -- and he let people know his decision before the vote started. So, he didn't just go with flow once he saw the bill was going to lose, like Sam Brownback and some of the others. Tossing a few bucks the NRSC's way as a thank-you wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.
Last but not least, take a day and drink in the victory. It took way too long and it was way too hard, but the American people won out in the end. Take a little time to be happy about that.
PS: Here's a piece of free advice for George Bush and the Republican senators who ended up on the wrong end of this bill: You need to get right with your base and with the American people -- and you need to do it in a hurry.
These photos were taken at the "Trans March" in San Francisco on June 22, 2007. The Trans March is, according to the event's own website, a gathering of "ftm, mtf, bayot, crossdressers, sadhin, hijra, transvestites, bantut, drag queens, drag kings, mahu, transsexuals, bakla, travesti, genderqueers, kathoey, two spirit, intersex and those with other labels for themselves and no labels for themselves, those who see gender as having more than two options, and those who live between the existing options."
The event was part of "Pride Weekend," on which there are three marches: The lesser-known Trans March (for transsexuals) on Friday, followed by the Dyke March (for lesbians) on Saturday, and culminating in the huge Pride Parade (for all gay people) on Sunday. The photos on this page are only from the Trans March.
"They don't watch TV – this is how they play/the boys had fatigues and were playing war/the girls wanted some/they run around the house with water guns/shooting each other."
"It's fascinating to me/that an image of a child dressed up as a soldier/evokes so much attention/yet the real soldiers – their deaths – their wounded bodies/doesn't seem to faze most/or make news."
Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks," a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.
"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it," Edwards said by phone on MSNBC's "Hardball" program, where Coulter was a guest.
Elizabeth Edwards said she did not consult her husband before confronting Coulter on the air, adding that she felt the pundit's remarks were "a dialogue on hatefulness and ugliness."
On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.
Elizabeth Edwards says she is scared of the "rabid, rabid Republican" who owns property across the street from her Orange County home — and she doesn't want her kids going near the gun-toting neighbor.
Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, particularly recalls the time neighbor Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way off his property. The Edwards family has yet to meet Johnson in person.
"I wouldn't be nice to him anyway," Edwards said in an interview. "I don't want my kids anywhere near some guy who when he doesn't like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me."
Edwards views Johnson as a "rabid, rabid Republican" who refuses to clean up his "slummy" property just to spite her family, whose lavish 28,000-square-foot estate is nearby on 102 wooded acres.
Johnson, 55, acknowledges his Republican roots. But he takes offense to the suggestion he has purposefully left his property, including an old garage that he leases for use as a car shop, in dilapidated condition.
"I have to budget. I have to leave within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."
Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.
The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.
"I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."
Johnson said he has put his property on the market, in part blaming the high property taxes for his decision to leave. He also wants to move for another reason.
"I don't want to live somewhere where someone's always complaining about me," he said.
RO, I AGREE WITH U ON MOSTLY EVERYTHING. BUT SOMEHOW I FOUND THE PICTURE OF VIVI DISTURBING. I DON’T EVEN LET MY CHILDREN PLAY WITH ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT. IT’S JUST A COMMENT. BUT OH WELL!!!!!!
My god... . that picture. I can’t stop crying. This war is such bullsh*t.
OH SNAP! That picture of VIVI is so real, that it is scary…to think, places in the world children are trained to kill, dressed like that. SHOCK AND AWE! WOOP THERE IT IS! Dear God!
Oh, WOW Vivi looks beautiful.! the fact that U let her explore her imagination like that shows what a good mom U R. In some countries though, they are training terrorists that young, how sad is that?
Powerful picture on your header. What we need to be focusing on, instead of you know who. Love it. I can see the negative comments flowing in.
Congratulations from PETA on the reviews for SiCKO. Although we think that your film could actually help reform America’s sorely inadequate health care system, there’s an elephant in the room, and it is you. With all due respect, no one can help but notice that a weighty health issue is affecting you personally. We’d like to help you fix that. Going vegetarian is an easy and life-saving step that people of all economic backgrounds can take in order to become less reliant on the government’s shoddy healthcare system, and it’s something that you and all Americans can benefit from personally. Vegetarians weigh, on average, up to 20 percent less than their meat-eating counterparts—meaning less weight-related problems like heart attacks and strokes—and live about eight years longer. I’m sure that your fans would appreciate having you around longer! By going vegetarian, you would also provide a powerful message of personal responsibility for one’s health, allowing others to become less reliant on a
system that doesn’t care about them. As they say at Nike (sorry!): “Just do it.” We can help, but first, here are some facts: ...
· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.
My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.
· We are "supporting the troops" by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?
Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.
In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.
President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?
A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.
District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.
"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.
Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.
Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.
The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
Charles W. Lindberg, one of the U.S. Marines who raised the first American flag over Iwo Jima during World War II, has died. He was 86.
Lindberg died Sunday at Fairview Southdale hospital in the Minneapolis suburb of Edina, said John Pose, director of the Morris Nilsen Funeral Home in Richfield, which is handling Lindberg's funeral.
Lindberg spent decades explaining that it was his patrol, not the one captured in the famous Associated Press photograph by Joe Rosenthal, that raised the first flag as U.S. forces fought to take the Japanese island.
In the late morning of Feb. 23, 1945, Lindberg fired his flame-thrower into enemy pillboxes at the base of Mount Suribachi and then joined five other Marines fighting their way to the top. He was awarded the Silver Star for bravery.
"Two of our men found this big, long pipe there," he said in an interview with The Associated Press in 2003. "We tied the flag to it, took it to the highest spot we could find and we raised it.
"Down below, the troops started to cheer, the ship's whistles went off, it was just something that you would never forget," he said. "It didn't last too long, because the enemy started coming out of the caves."
The moment was captured by Sgt. Lou Lowery, a photographer from the Marine Corps' Leatherneck magazine. It was the first time a foreign flag flew on Japanese soil, according to the book "Flags of Our Fathers," by James Bradley with Ron Powers. Bradley's father, Navy Corpsman John Bradley, was one of the men in the famous photo of the second flag-raising.
"We thought it would be a slaughterhouse up on Suribachi," Lindberg said in the book. "I still don't understand why we were not attacked."
Three of the men in the first raising never saw their photos. They were among the more than 6,800 U.S. servicemen killed in the five-week battle for the island.
By Lindberg's account, his commander ordered the first flag replaced and safeguarded because he worried someone would take it as a souvenir. Lindberg was back in combat when six men raised the second, larger flag about four hours later.
As happens to many young couples, my girlfriend and I have found ourselves confronted with a decision to make about having a child, and we're not sure what to do. There are many options available to us, and a difficult evaluation of the responsibilities and obligations, as well as the joys, that come with raising a child.
Our two real options are either having and raising the child, or aborting. While we'd like to think that adoption is a viable option for us, my girlfriend doesn't believe that she'd be able to give up a child after giving birth to it, and that's not something I'm going to pressure us into doing. We also don't want to be subconsciously resentful of a child that we kept when we weren't ready for it. If we're not ready to raise it, we're not going to bring a baby into the world.
Because of the state we're in, we have about three months to make a decision one way or the other. Right now, we're leaning toward abortion. We're simply not financially secure enough to ensure that we can bring up a kid in the environment it would deserve. It's not that we're poor, we just don't have the stability that we think having a baby necessitates.
Please don't mis-understand, it's not that we _want_ to abort the baby. Although neither of us is particularly pro-life, we don't want to have to have an abortion. We think we'd be pretty good parents, and we both would enjoy raising a kid. We're both from pretty good stock, well educated and intelligent. We'd be able to raise the child in a good environment, teach it right, keep it out of trouble, and introduce a new productive member of humanity to the world. Our kid won't grow up and rob you.
Right now, we just can't afford it, which is why we're here, on this site. We've crunched some numbers, and we believe that, to really set ourselves up in a good environemnt for the baby, we need $50,000. That'll give us the down payment on a decent house, get us a car that runs reliably, allow us to save away a little for the baby's college fund, cover any medical bills (she's uninsured), and give us a little buffer while she's not working.
It comes down to this. If we can't raise the $50,000 in the next 3 months, we'll have to choose abortion. We don't like it, and we don't like the nature of our appeal, but it is what it is. We're asking you to donate money to us using the link to your left. Anything you can give would be appreciated.
Understand that you are giving the money to us, with no obligation on our part. We want to remain anonymous, for our sake and for that of our child, if we have one. We don't think it'd be right for anyone to know that their existance depended upon a fiscal calculation, regardless of the rationality of that decision. We're not going to contact you, we're not going to post pictures, we're not going to give you status updates. After three months, our decision will be made, and this site will go away.
We're not a non-profit, we're going to pay taxes on anything that's given to us. You can't write off anything you give us on your taxes. We're not a registered corporation or organization. We're just two people.
Please do not attempt to contact us. We have registered and hosted this site through a company that allows for anonymity in that proces, and are having them handle our donations as well. They will not tell you our names, because they don't know them. They don't know how to contact us. When the time's up, we'll get ahold of them and tell them how to get us the money.
We appreciate your time, and hope that you'll be able to give something. We know this isn't exactly tasteful, but that doesn't change our situation.
Thanks for all your supportive emails. The non-supportive ones, well, they're entitled to their opinion.
We've been asked the same questions by many people. I'll answer them here, to minimize confusion.
What happens to the money if you end up aborting? - If we have an abortion, we will donate 100% of the money we receive to a national, recognized, legit charity dedicated to helping people in our situation out. Probably a pro-life group.
Why didn't you just use birth control? - We do.
You're disgusting! How dare you place a monetary value on the life of a child! - Don't be absurd. The question of finances is always a decision when confronted with the choice of having a child. And for you pro-choice people out there, many of your arguments for abortion deal with the financial consequences of raising a child. So don't look down your nose at us because we're up front about it.
You don't need $50,000/house/car to raise a baby! - No, you're right. We don't need it to raise a baby. But it's still a precondition to the kind of life that we think is necessary to raising a healthy, well-balanced child, and we're not going to give birth until we've reached that level of security. You may disagree with our reasoning, but there it is.
Your child will be damaged from this! - No it won't, becaue we would never tell a.) anyone, b.) the child specificially. Thats why we want to remain anonymous.
You are _giving_ us money, with no expectation of getting anything in return, ever. We are not obligated to do, or refrain from, anything as a result of your or anyone else's donation. You do not, and will never, know who we are. You agree not to try to find out who we are. You agree not to contact InvisiHosting about our site. You agree that knowing our identitiy is not a condition of your gift. You agree to not disclose any information about us to any other party. This is not a non-profit. You don't get to write this off on your taxes, and we have to pay taxes on any gifts you give us. You agree to pay only through PayPal and only to the account of InvisiHosting, LLC, who will then transfer the money to us at the end of three months. You agree not to hold InvisiHosting, LLC liable for any actions on our part. You agree that they are not responsible for any dissatisfaction that you may experience as a result of donating to us. You agree to forfeit $25,000 per violation of these terms.
With all the time and money at their disposal, you would think that celebrities who decide to get their breasts done have access to the best cosmetic surgeons out there who at least have an idea how to go about performing a boob job. As it turns out, too many female celebrities enter a plastic surgeon’s office and come out looking like they’ve been forced to swallow coconuts (or in some cases, watermelons) only to have them lodged inside their chests. Some celebrities also find their implants eventually rippling, and the effect, to say the least, is absolutely gross.
Here are the Ten Worst Celebrity Boob Jobs ever.
Nicholas Perrino was kicked out of the Ivy League institution's School of Nursing for missing an exam, and now he is suing to get back in.
"I should have went to Yale," moaned Perrino, who is representing himself in the case.
The 27-year-old Illinois native said he was working toward two master's degrees last summer, when his grandparents became gravely ill, forcing him to take a few days off.
He told his instructors he would be absent for a skills exam and tried to arrange a makeup, Perrino claims in documents filed June 15 in Manhattan Supreme Court.
Instead, he says, the school failed him in the course - part of a fast-track master's program.
Filing academic grievances and appealing to the Columbia provost got him nowhere, he said, and he was withdrawn from the School of Nursing.
"It's insane," Perrino said. "It's not like I killed someone."
Perrino is asking a judge to remove the "F" from his transcript, reinstate him at the school and reimburse tuition costs for classes he has already taken.
You are hereby notified that your membership in the Bad Boy Bad Girl club has been revoked. You slipped over the edge into stupid and are no longer good at being bad, so we want you out and will not refund your dues. And by "dues" I mean the dues you paid by doing a sex video, starring in "The Simple Life," getting drunk in public, converting others to the club [Brittney and Lindsey, which, by the way, will also be receiving this notice], showing the world -- via the paparazzi -- your coochi, and all around acting without remorse or apology ... all wonderful things.
However, real Bad Girls don't drink and drive, real bad girls don't get caught, real bad girls don't go to jail [that's only cool if you're a guy], and real bad girls don't call Sarah Silverman a bitch. Moreover, we all know the rich don't do jail time, and if they do, they do it with class [see Martha Stewart for details]. Therefore, you're out.
Fortunately for the other members of the club, you can't buy your way back in. Feel free to re-apply, but for now you are on permanent suspension.
P.S. Notifying you via TMZ is considered official.
My source tells me that this has left a sour taste in the mouth of a number of Republican senators who are upset that Mitch McConnell is cooperating with Harry Reid to curtail the rights of Republican senators. Moreover, there's a growing fear that a dangerous precedent is being set here that could be used against Republican senators again and again as long as they're in the minority. After all, if the "clay pigeon" strategy is used against conservatives on the immigration issue, who's to say it won't also be used against them on any number of issues in the future? According to my source, this is causing a lot of nervousness amongst Republican senators and it has Mitch McConnell acting very defensively behind closed doors about working with Harry Reid to roll members of his own caucus. Because of this issue, my source tells me that the vote for the "clay pigeon" strategy is no longer a slam dunk and it is possible that the "grand bargainers" may not be able to get 60 votes to put the bill on the floor as a new bill. If that turns out to be the case, the bill is dead.
“I’m so much more grateful for everything that I have, even just to have a pillow at night or food. You know my gratitude has gone up so much and I just realize that the media used me to make fun of and be mean about it. Frankly [I’m] sick of it and I want to use my fame in a good way. I am behind glass and I want to give my dad a big hug and they won’t even let me do that. That’s how the rules are, you have to be behind glass. I’m not a criminal, I’m not dangerous, so it makes me feel like that. It’s hard but I’m stronger everyday. I just can’t wait to see my family and have a nice meal and be in my own bed and appreciate all the things I took for granted and never really thought much about.”
Admiral (Adm) or General (Gen)
On the cuffs, one broad gold horizontal stripe; on the epaulets, four small gold maple leaves in a diamond pattern with crossed swords and a crown above. Unless written otherwise, all epaulets have "CANADA" in gold lettering on the epaulets on the part nearest the sleeve.
Marine researchers are warning about a growing number of dolphin bite cases in Sarasota County, according to a Local 6 News report.
Florida experts said wild dolphins are becoming more aggressive because boaters are feeding them.
"It seems reasonable to understand why you wouldn't feed a bear or something more dangerous-appearing, but these are wild animals," dolphin researcher Jason Allen said. "They are wild animals with lots of sharp teeth."
Officials said a dolphin bit a woman from Lakeland earlier this month when she tried to pet it.
It is illegal to feed, harass, swim with or follow wild dolphins. Violators face misdemeanor charges for committing the crimes.
A protest of military recruiting in Seattle Public Schools has shut down tonight's School Board meeting.
Acting President Darlene Flynn recessed the meeting before she could even take roll because about 30 students marched into the meeting room chanting, "Yo School Board, what's up? We're here to say we've had enough."
Some students covered with fake blood collapsed on the floor, then were carried around the room. After the demonstration, the students spoke to the meeting's attendees in support of a proposed policy they wrote that would require military recruitment to be confined to twice-yearly recruitment fairs.
After more than a half-hour, the board convened with the district's attorney to discuss its course of action. Board members re-entered the board meeting room, where the students demanded 10 to 15 minutes to address them.
Instead, board member Brita Butler-Wall made a motion to reconvene in a small boardroom. The media — but not the public — were allowed inside while the board continued its business.
"We couldn't hear each other, and if you can't hear each other, you can't do the public's business," Flynn said.
At 7:45 p.m., the board voted to return to the boardroom after a break. The protesters had moved outside.
The overall goal of this project is to protect and rehabilitate the wildlife, eco-system and watershed conservation values of the Samlaut Multiple Use Area, Battambang Province.
Cambodia has had a long history in protected area development. By the time of independence in 1957 over two million hectares of Cambodia’s forest was designated as either wildlife sanctuary or forest protection reserves. The subsequent intervention of political insecurity, war, and political isolation resulted in the neglect of these reserves. However, the re-establishment of protected areas has become an integral part of Cambodia’s national rehabilitation since the beginning of the post-war period. A key aspect of this development has been efforts to provide for nature conservation and wildlife protection. This includes the designation of 23 separate protected areas by Royal Decree in November 1993.
The Samlaut Multiple-Use Management Area is one of these. Located on the Cambodian – Thai border within an isolated portion of far western Cambodia, it has a total area of approximately 60,000 hectares. About 39,000 ha. lie within the municipality of Pailin whilst the remaining 21,000 ha. lie within Samlaut district of Battambang province. Its boundaries follow old road alignments, some of which have been maintained in trafficable condition and river and stream courses. The reserve was therefore designated as a multiple-use management area because of concerns that the inevitability of industrialized gemstone mining would lead to the substantive degradation of its nature conservation values.
Because of lack of funds the future of this project is uncertain.
A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge").
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms.
Several of the donating journalists said they had no regrets, whatever the ethical concerns.
"Probably there should be a rule against it," said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine's profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. "But there's a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don't regret it."
The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004 and $250 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio in 2006.
In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush's "shallow, unreflective character."
"My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere," Packer said. "If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn't do it. Fortunately, it doesn't."
Is Osama a hero? That's the provocative beginning of a new play about the "war on terror".
A SCHOOL assignment asks students to name a contemporary hero who is prepared to give up personal wealth for what he believes in and is inspirational to many people.
The show, with a cast of five, now comes to La Mama with the stated aim of getting audiences to consider some of the implications of the so-called "war on terror".
"It's a deliberately provocative title designed to shock us into action," says the play's director, Syd Brisbane. "Dissent about what's happening is hard to find. You need strength and purpose to keep the debate moving forward."
The play functions as a microcosm of the world after the terrorist strikes on New York and Washington, with violence now much more paramount.
Gary, played by Xavier Samuel, is the student who believes in honesty and names Osama bin Laden as his modern hero. This results in him being seized by people from the housing estate where he lives, and bound and gagged.
Bins and garages have been blowing up on the estate and Gary gets the blame. The playwright, whose earlier play Debris was performed in Melbourne last year, described Osama as a "brutal play" that expressed his own confusion about the state of the world.
Brisbane says it is quite political, with Gary's plight used to symbolise that of others accused of terrorism. "When he says there is no proof against him, he's told the evidence isn't necessary in dealing with terrorists."